Kolkata Court May 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hriday Krishna Pal and ors. Vs. Rajani Kanta Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal300,68Ind.Cas.293
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for ejectment. The only objection taken to the judgment of the lower Appellate Court which reverses the judgment of the Trial Court is that the leaned Subordinate Judge admitted evidence on behalf of the defendants after the arguments in the appeal had been heard and judgment reserved and based his decision upon that evidence. The objection taken is that the lower Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to admit the evidence complained of under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, as it did not some either under clause(a) or Clause (b) of sub Rule (1) of Rule 27, and that the learned Judge did not record any reason for admitting it as provided by Sub-rule (2) of that rule. The order of the teamed Judge, dated the 2nd of April 1920, runs thus: 'Arguments heard and judgment reserved. Let the document filed by the appellants be kept with the record'. On the 26th of April the learned Judge delivered judgment decr...
Naba Kishore Tilakdas Vs. Paro Bewa
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal198,74Ind.Cas.283
Richardson, J.1. The disputed land originally formed part of the occupancy holding of Fatiram Tilakdas. After his death his widow, pratima, mortgaged the holding to the plaintiff. Under the terms of the mortgage instrument the plaintiff was to have possession as usufructuary mortgagee, or ijaradar for a period of nine years ending with Baisakh 1319 B.S. Tilakdas left four daughters, but it appears that since the death of his widow, two of the daughters paro and, Bhuban have been treated as his heirs and the case has been argued before us on both sides on the assumption that they were his sole heirs.2. On the expiry of the term of his mortgage the plaintiff did not surrender possession of the holding or the agricultural land therein comprised. In 1912, therefore, Paro and Bhuban sued him in ejectment claiming title as their father's heirs. In that suit Paro succeeded in appeal to the extent of a moiety of the holding while Bhuban's claim to the other moiety was dismissed. It is not very...
Sarat Chandra Sen Vs. Rajkumar Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal135(1),69Ind.Cas.863
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of land upon establishment of title. The plaintiff and the defendant are owners of adjoining parcels and the controversy between them constitutes a boundary dispute. On the 19th May 1915, they executed a deed of agreement and referred the matter in dispute to three arbitrators. The arbitrators held an enquiry, and on the 4th November 1917, one of them announced a decision which was signed only by himself and was unfavourable to the plaintiff. On the 8th March 1918, the plaintiff commenced the present litigation to establish his title and to enforce hie claim. The arbitrators were not apprised of the institution of the suit, and on the 30th March 1918 they published their joint award. The defendant, who did not receive notice of the suit till the 4th April, entered appearance on the 11th April and filed his written statement on the 25th April. Amongst other defences, he urged that the award was a bar So the maint...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›